alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2957 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2957

   To prevent prisoners who have been convicted of terrorism related 
offenses from being eligible for early release, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2019

Mr. Byrne (for himself and Mr. Van Drew) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prevent prisoners who have been convicted of terrorism related 
offenses from being eligible for early release, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Leniency for Terrorists Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. EARLY RELEASE EXCEPTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 3624(b) of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking ``Subject to paragraph (2)'' each 
                place it appears and inserting ``Subject to paragraphs 
                (2) and (5)'' ; and
                    (B) by striking ``year'' and inserting ``year,''; 
                and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) A prisoner may not receive credit toward service of 
        the prisoner's sentence for a crime under--
                    ``(A) chapter 113b of this title; or
                    ``(B) section 206 of the International Emergency 
                Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) resulting from 
                conspiring with, providing material support or 
                resources to, supplying services to, or otherwise 
                aiding a foreign terrorist organization designated 
                under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality 
                Act of 1965 (8 U.S.C. 1189).''.
    (b) Applicability.--This Act and the amendments made by this Act 
shall apply with respect to each prisoner in the custody of the Bureau 
of Prisons on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-7462.

#### Gerardo Arroyo-Munoz, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1153, 131 S. Ct. 944,

178 L. Ed. 2d 781,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 362.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 10M68.

#### Arturo Boyer, et ux., Petitioners v. David Friscia, et al.

562 U.S. 1198, 131 S. Ct. 1061,

178 L. Ed. 2d 861,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 922.

January 24, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 11-5293.

#### Corey Louis Hines, Petitioner v. Lisa J. W. Hollingworth, Warden (ten judgments).

565 U.S. 807, 132 S. Ct. 385,

181 L. Ed. 2d 8,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6550.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
# C_2013352EN.01002101.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/21

---

Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

(Case T-523/13)

2013/C 352/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Euromed, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DC Druck-Chemie GmbH (Ammerbuch-Altingen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 1854/2012-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 1854/2012-1; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROSIL’ for goods in Class 1 — Community trade mark application No 8 558 751

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Community registration No 6 140 099 and the word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Spanish registration No 2 785 209

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

and

VRG LINHAS AEREAS S.A. d/b/a GOL 

(U.S.-Brazil Codesharing)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0095

30 DAY NOTICE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

AND VRG LINHAS AEREAS S.A. d/b/a GOL

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Felipe Amadeu Lotufo

Contracts and Corporate Lawyer

Legal Department

VRG Linhas Aereas S.A.—Grupo Gol

Praca Comandante Lineu Gomes, s/n, portaria 03

Jardim Aeroporto Sao Paulo/SP – CEP 04626-020

November 8, 2012

Alexander Van der Bellen, 

 Managing Director, Government Affairs 

 and Associate General Counsel

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

1212 New York Avenue, NW Suite 200

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 842-4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com
 

BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

and

VRG LINHAS AEREAS S.A. d/b/a GOL 

(U.S.-Brazil Codesharing)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0095

30 DAY NOTICE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

AND VRG LINHAS AEREAS S.A. d/b/a GOL

Pursuant to the statement of authorization granted to VRG Linhas Aereas S.A. 

d/b/a Gol (“Gol”),1

 Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”), and Gol hereby notify the Department 

that, on or after 30 days from today, Delta plans to introduce additional DL* codesharing 

on Gol-operated flights to the points listed in Attachment A. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Felipe Amadeu Lotufo

__________________________

Felipe Amadeu Lotufo

Contracts and Corporate Lawyer

Legal Department

VRG Linhas Aereas S.A.—Grupo Gol

___________________

Alexander Van der Bellen, 

 Managing Director, Government Affairs 

 and Associate General Counsel

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

 1

 NOAT May 11, 2010; NOAT April 19, 2011 in DOT-OST-2010-0095. 
Attachment A

(1) Delta DL* code on Gol-operated flights beyond Delta’s Brazil gateways:

A. Points in Brazil

Aracaju 

Bauru 

Boa Vista 

Campinas 

Campina Grande 

Campo Grande 

Caxias do Sul 

Chapeco 

Cruzeiro do Sul Acre 

Fernando de Noronha 

Ilheus 

Imperatriz 

Joinville 

Juazeiro do Norte 

Macapa Amapa 

Maceio Alagoas 

Maraba 

Maringa 

Montes Claros 

Palmas To 

Petrolina 

Porto Seguro 

Porto Velho 

Pres Prudente 

Rio Branco 

Rio de Janeiro 

San Luiz Maranhao 

Santarem 

Sao Paulo 

Uberlandia 

B. Beyond Points in Third Countries

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Curacao, Curacao

Punta Cana, Dominican Republic

Rosario, Argentina

Santa Cruz-Viru Viru, Bolivia

Santiago, Chile
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing document has been served this 8th day of November, 2012, 

upon the following persons via email:

francis.heil@aa.com

robert.wirick@aa.com

howard_kass@usairways.com

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

dan.weiss@united.com

steve.morrissey@united.com

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov

george.wellington@dot.gov

brian.hedberg@dot.gov

urskr@state.gov

info@airlineinfo.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED December 31,
1999.


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                             997
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   997
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10000
<COMMON>                                          1935
<OTHER-SE>                                      (10938)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       997
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2825)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.001)



</TABLE>
#### Kristin Breen, Appellant, v 330 East 50th Partners, L.P., et al., Respondents.

[61 NYS3d 902]

*584Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered June 14, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and rent overcharge, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that the subject apartment is not rent-stabilized, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly dismissed the rent overcharge claim, as plaintiff did not meet her burden of coming forward with any indicia of fraud to warrant looking beyond the limitations period for an improper increase in rent *(see Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent*Admin., 15 NY3d 358 [2010]; *Matter of Boyd v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*23 NY3d 999 [2014]). Neither the sizeable increase in the apartment rent between 1990 and 1991, based in part on apartment improvements, nor plaintiff’s mere skepticism about the quality or extent of those improvements, were sufficient to establish a colorable claim of fraud *(Grimm,*15 NY3d at 367; *Taylor v 72A Realty Assoc., L.P.,*151 AD3d 95, 104 [1st Dept 2017]).

The motion correctly determined that plaintiff’s apartment is not rent-stabilized and that she is not entitled to a rent-stabilized lease. Even if the 1990 to 1991 rent increases for improvements were disregarded, and only renewal and vacancy increases applied, defendants demonstrated that the rent would have reached the deregulation threshold by the time plaintiff leased the apartment (see *Matter of 18 St. Marks Place Trident LLC v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin.,*149 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2017]).

We modify only to issue a declaration in favor of defendants (see *A1 Entertainment LLC v 27th St. Prop. LLC,*60 AD3d 516, 516 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gische and Moulton, JJ.
#### *Uribe et al., Petitioners, v. Libey, Ensley & Nelson, PLLC, et al., Respondents,*

No. 91928-3.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 32315-3-III, May 5, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1025. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
# C_2013101EN.01002203.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/22

---

Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Formula One Licensing/OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O)

(Case T-55/13)

2013/C 101/49

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Formula One Licensing BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Klingberg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Marketing SA (Lausanne, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of appeal in case R 1247/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of appeal in case R 1247/2011-4;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation;

| — | Order the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘F1H2O’ , for goods and services in classes 9, 25, 38 and 41 — International Registration No 925 383 designating the European Union

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International Registration No 732 134, British trade mark No 2277746B, Community trade mark No 3 934 387, International registration N 845 571, Benelux trademark No 749 056, British trade mark No 2277746 D, Community trade mark No 631 531, Community trade mark No 3 429 396, International Registration No 714 320, International Registration No 823 226 and Benelux trade mark No 732 601 of the mark‘F1 et al.’ for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32 to 36, 38, 39 and 41 to 43

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.61 MB)
 
 DLA news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.61 MB)
 
 DLA news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.61 MB)
 
 DLA news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.61 MB)
 
 DLA news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
No. 10-729.

#### McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., Petitioner v. Armando Valdes, III, etc., et al.

562 U.S. 1180, 131 S. Ct. 1021,

178 L. Ed. 2d 829,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 747.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied.

*830Same case below, 27 So. 3d 689.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6419

JAMES OUTLAW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES H. CONDON,

Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-3827-3-22BC)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the order of the magistrate judge granting

Respondents an extension of time in which to respond to Appellant's

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

as interlocutory. We deny as moot Appellant's motion for bail pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
November 5, 2013

Mr. Charles Turner

President Rhinelander Flying Service 3400 Airport Road, P.O. Box 501 Rhinelander, WI 54501

Dear Mr. Turner :

This is in response to your September 13 , 2013 letter sent to the public docket ( No. FAA

2013

- 0827 ) petitioning the Fede ral Aviation Administration on behalf of Rhinelander Flying Services (Rhinelander ) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow Rhinelander to cover its safety

- sensitive employee s under one testing program

.

On July 15, 2013 , the FAA published the Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs

final r ule (78 FR 41999) relating to air carrier operators and commuter or on

- demand operators that also conduct commercial air tour operations to combine the drug and alcohol testing required for each operation into one testing program . A copy of this rule change and guidance from the FAA’s Drug Abatement Division are enclosed for your information.

If you have any questions, please contact th e FAAs Drug Abatement Division at (202) 267

- 8442 or drugabatement@faa.gov

. Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new rule, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ Thuy Coo per Acting Manager, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure